:00:11. > :00:14.On tonight's programme, would churches ever be forced to marry
:00:14. > :00:18.gay couples even if they didn't want to? That's the fear from one
:00:18. > :00:25.prominent politician. Is he right? Why did the Ministry of Defence
:00:25. > :00:28.choose to close Leuchars instead of Lossiemouth? With claims of a
:00:28. > :00:31.backroom deal, one MP is demanding an inquiry.
:00:31. > :00:34.Could a church, which doesn't support same sex relationships, be
:00:34. > :00:38.forced to allow two gay people to get married? That's the prospect
:00:38. > :00:40.the SNP MSP John Mason wants to avoid. He has lodged a
:00:41. > :00:43.controversial motion at Holyrood which has been described as "nasty"
:00:44. > :00:47.and "anti-gay marriage" - those were the views of a party colleague,
:00:47. > :00:49.by the way. Mr Mason's intervention comes ahead of an expected
:00:49. > :00:55.consultation on same sex relationships by the Scottish
:00:55. > :01:02.government. So who is closer to public opinion on this issue - Mr
:01:02. > :01:05.Mason or his critics. Julie Peacock reports.
:01:05. > :01:10.Taking the next step. Civil partnerships for gay couples have
:01:10. > :01:14.been illegal since 2005, but the same cannot be said for same-sex
:01:14. > :01:18.marriages. It is something the Government is looking into, but one
:01:18. > :01:22.MSP has raised concerns that if there is a change in the law,
:01:22. > :01:26.individuals of religious organisations may be legally forced
:01:26. > :01:32.to marry same-sex couples even where it is against their beliefs.
:01:32. > :01:36.It is caused debate among step SNP, but their leader says it is bound
:01:36. > :01:39.individuals to make a decision. do not understand the difficulty.
:01:39. > :01:44.This is clearly an issue of conscience which is not something
:01:44. > :01:47.you did a party were born. The Government will declare its
:01:47. > :01:53.position and we have a consultation document coming out in a few weeks'
:01:53. > :01:57.time. That is the best way in a matter such as this - to engage in
:01:57. > :02:01.a debate and then come to a consultation not as a political
:02:01. > :02:11.party that has a Parliament. John Mason's motion has angered Alan
:02:11. > :02:21.
:02:21. > :02:25.As things stand at the moment, it is down to individual priests and
:02:25. > :02:29.ministers who gets to decide who gets their wedding photographs
:02:29. > :02:33.taken on the steps. The Catholic Church will not marry divorcees and
:02:33. > :02:39.some ministers will not marry members of their congregation, so
:02:39. > :02:46.the idea of rules for the marriage is just an extension of that. They
:02:46. > :02:50.are few who think that is an unreasonable compromise. In John
:02:50. > :02:58.Mason's back garden Shettleston, no one these but who thought it would
:02:58. > :03:04.cause any major problems. You can deprive them if you wanted yourself.
:03:04. > :03:08.Why should they refused? They didn't refuse them to live outside
:03:08. > :03:13.of wedlock, and they're still baptising the children when people
:03:13. > :03:15.and married, so what is the difference? Reverend MoD Robertson
:03:15. > :03:19.from the Unitarian Church his campaign to make same-sex marriages
:03:19. > :03:29.legal, but she doesn't think forcing people the conduct them is
:03:29. > :03:32.
:03:32. > :03:37.what anyone wants to stop -- anyone wants. I fully accept that there
:03:37. > :03:40.are people who, for genuine religious reasons, feel that they
:03:40. > :03:46.cannot and would not beat and a position to officiate at a same-sex
:03:46. > :03:50.marriage, and therefore I think it would be important that there is a
:03:50. > :03:54.conscience clause within any legislation for same-sex marriage.
:03:55. > :04:02.That there would be no legal red percussion for anybody who, for
:04:02. > :04:05.religious reasons, wanted out of it. The question is, would any couple
:04:05. > :04:12.want to be married by a celebrant who basically does not approve of
:04:12. > :04:15.their relationship? They probably would not want to be married.
:04:16. > :04:19.Henderson has been campaigning for same-sex marriage in Scotland. He
:04:19. > :04:23.says that John Mason's motion is unnecessary, because everyone
:04:23. > :04:26.involved in the debate already except the right to opt out.
:04:26. > :04:31.not sure what he's trying to get that. It has been the position of
:04:31. > :04:34.everybody involved in this debate that there has to be a religious
:04:34. > :04:40.opt-outs for those in various churches to do not want to conduct
:04:40. > :04:46.those, because nobody should be forced if they do not want it. It
:04:46. > :04:50.is really important that those religions and face and all
:04:50. > :04:55.religious groups who want to conduct same-sex marriages are
:04:55. > :05:02.allowed to do so. What about the allegation that refusing to manage
:05:02. > :05:05.a gay couple could be construed is discrimination? Even in terms of
:05:05. > :05:08.European human rights physician, a balance has to be struck between
:05:08. > :05:13.the rates of the individuals who want to be married and the rights
:05:13. > :05:16.and religious bodies to carry out the marriage. We need to bear in
:05:16. > :05:20.mind that carrying out a marriage is not just a public service, it is
:05:20. > :05:25.a religious service, so there has to be a balance between the rights
:05:25. > :05:29.of the religious celebrant as against the rights of the parties.
:05:29. > :05:32.From a legal point of view, a compromise has to be struck.
:05:32. > :05:35.Compromise is after all said to be the key to a successful marriage.
:05:35. > :05:41.Will that be something the politicians remember when the
:05:41. > :05:46.debate the issue later this year. With me here is the SNP MSP John
:05:46. > :05:52.Mason, and in Edinburgh is the Green MSP Alison Johnstone. Thank
:05:52. > :05:58.you both. John Mason, this is a completely pointless motion, isn't
:05:58. > :06:04.it? No one is arguing that charges are anyone else should be forced to
:06:04. > :06:06.marry gay couples? There is a certain concern or fear amongst
:06:06. > :06:12.certain churches and religious organisations that that could be a
:06:12. > :06:17.consequence. I am reassured by what people said in your film club, but
:06:17. > :06:22.some churches are scared that if judges are permitted to carry it
:06:22. > :06:25.same-sex marriage, and some do and some don't, it would only take one
:06:26. > :06:30.couple to go to a church that did not want to do it and claim that
:06:30. > :06:35.they had been discriminated against. If we can ensure that this is in
:06:35. > :06:38.place, I am relaxed about it. would you dixit? Would you like to
:06:39. > :06:42.see legislation, and we don't of there will be any? What would you
:06:42. > :06:46.like to see happen to ensure that that scenario does not develop?
:06:46. > :06:50.Right now, I want to get a debate going and I am delighted that has
:06:50. > :06:57.happened. Hopley, at this stage of consultation and the full bill,
:06:57. > :07:02.which I hope will come, then it there will be a really inform
:07:02. > :07:06.debate about these issues. There are also issues - such as the a
:07:06. > :07:10.quality act - and we're talking about some kind of same-sex
:07:10. > :07:14.marriage Act here in Scotland. How would that two of those compete in
:07:14. > :07:21.court? Then there are Christian groups, who fear that when the
:07:21. > :07:24.courts get hold of religion, they did it at the bottom of the pale.
:07:24. > :07:29.Do you approve personally of the changes which have already taken
:07:29. > :07:33.place in Scotland, which allow civil partnerships? Do you, on
:07:33. > :07:39.personal religious grounds, disapprove? I am very relaxed about
:07:39. > :07:43.what has happened and about most of what might happen. Does relaxed
:07:43. > :07:46.been a rule? Were relaxed means they want a society were lots of
:07:46. > :07:51.different minority groups can co- exist with each other, and we do
:07:51. > :07:56.not always agree with each other... Are all those groups before? A they
:07:56. > :07:59.absolutely must be. Every person must be equal. Then why don't gay
:07:59. > :08:04.people have an equal right to manage? I think they should have. I
:08:04. > :08:09.am happy about that. Nor concern whatsoever about the concept of gay
:08:09. > :08:15.marriage? I think the judges have been guilty about eating minorities
:08:15. > :08:19.badly for centuries, and I am happy to accept that. What they want to
:08:19. > :08:23.do is get rid of that and create a society where we are really go. The
:08:23. > :08:27.fear of many churches is that it will switch the other way and other
:08:27. > :08:33.groups will put pressure on the churches. Alison Johnstone, that is
:08:33. > :08:39.very reasonable? It sounds very reasonable indeed. I am reassured
:08:39. > :08:43.by John's reassurance, and I personally believe his motion was
:08:43. > :08:50.not strictly necessary, but it has ensured that we start debating this
:08:50. > :08:54.now. This proposal will only affect those who wish to have a gay
:08:54. > :08:58.marriage, and it will not affect those who do not. John is very
:08:58. > :09:03.concerned, his motion is concerned with involving people who do not
:09:03. > :09:07.approve of gay marriage, and that simply won't happen. What would you
:09:07. > :09:11.like to see happen if there is legislation? It is only at the
:09:11. > :09:15.level of a consultation, having a look at this, and we don't offered
:09:16. > :09:19.will come forward. What would you like to see happen? The fact that
:09:19. > :09:25.the members of the Scottish Youth Parliament with their lovely
:09:25. > :09:30.Quiller campaign, they consulted many people in this was the one
:09:30. > :09:32.issue they wanted to see debated. I think this shows what a great
:09:33. > :09:36.includes of country we have good potential to become. I think we
:09:36. > :09:40.should do all we can to embrace that intake that agenda forward. I
:09:40. > :09:44.have no doubt that in a modern and tolerance Scotland, at any
:09:44. > :09:49.consultation we have or reflect the fact that 50% of people in the last
:09:49. > :09:52.survey supported this proposal. What difference would it make to
:09:52. > :09:57.allow same-sex couples to get married, rather than have a civil
:09:57. > :10:02.partnership? I civil partnership confers many if not all of the same
:10:02. > :10:06.right, doesn't it? Just say you're the mother and father of three
:10:06. > :10:11.children, and perhaps two of those children have the right to get
:10:11. > :10:15.married and the other doesn't. How can that possibly be truly equal?
:10:15. > :10:21.To my mind and that too many hundreds of thousands of other
:10:21. > :10:25.Scots, that is not good enough. We need to look at that sensibly. If
:10:25. > :10:29.we are looking up to a quality, we have to look at the quality for all.
:10:29. > :10:33.Is this taking the quality too far? You're essentially arguing about a
:10:33. > :10:37.label, not different rights and responsibilities. I don't think
:10:38. > :10:42.this is simply a label at all. Marriage is about the celebration,
:10:42. > :10:47.a recognition under declaration at of your love and commitment to
:10:47. > :10:57.another person. Why should that depend on the person's gender? I do
:10:57. > :11:01.
:11:01. > :11:06.not see it is just a label but The debate has happened, not least
:11:06. > :11:13.within your own party. Does some of the reaction you've had, does that
:11:13. > :11:17.add to your fear those who don't share the believes might -- beliefs
:11:18. > :11:23.might feel they are being persecuted? You have people feeling
:11:23. > :11:25.persecuted on both sides. I think it would have been wrong in the --
:11:25. > :11:29.if the Scottish Parliament had drifted through this and because it
:11:29. > :11:34.was a difficult issue to raise, then nobody wanted to raise it. I
:11:34. > :11:38.think the public expect us, both the SNP, as the majority party, and
:11:38. > :11:42.the Scottish Parliament, to really debate these issues. They want to
:11:42. > :11:47.see the arguments put forward. strong is the SNP commitment? You
:11:47. > :11:52.look at the manifesto. It says, we'll have a consultation, we will
:11:52. > :11:58.discuss this. We recognise there are a variety of views. There is
:11:58. > :12:02.not one commitment. Alex Salmond's point was correct. This is a matter
:12:02. > :12:05.of conscience. Human rights are there as well. There will be a
:12:05. > :12:08.variety of opinion. The Scottish National Party is now the National
:12:08. > :12:12.Party of Scotland. We have a wide, wide range of people within that
:12:13. > :12:16.party. It's the majority. So what the party decides and thinks is
:12:16. > :12:22.really, really important for Scotland. How many share your
:12:22. > :12:27.concerns? I think a few probably to. I think other people maybe share
:12:27. > :12:35.concerns, people can be nervous about signing motions. I am not
:12:35. > :12:39.worried about the number I get. I've had some critical E mays and
:12:39. > :12:43.some on Facebook and some saying I was not going far enough. You say
:12:43. > :12:47.you have been reassured by what John Mason has said. How do you
:12:47. > :12:51.feel this debate will go forward? Do you think he's on the side of a
:12:51. > :12:56.majority of people in Scotland or the minority? As I mentioned
:12:56. > :13:02.earlier, 58% of people in the 2010 survey suggested they would back
:13:02. > :13:06.the proposal of gay marriage. I would be more reassured if John
:13:06. > :13:09.could issue a that if his concerns are addressed and he is assured
:13:09. > :13:14.that gay marriage will not involve those who wish to be involved that
:13:14. > :13:20.he will vote for this proposal. answer to that? I will have to wait
:13:20. > :13:24.and see the bill. I am in the 58% as well. I really, really have to
:13:24. > :13:28.look at these promises. That is a clear challenge. Nobody is going to
:13:28. > :13:37.be forced and your motion is all about forcing people. Nobody is
:13:37. > :13:41.forced to approve of same-sex relationships. There'll be more
:13:41. > :13:44.issues rized in the consultations.Vy tried to raise one
:13:44. > :13:47.-- raised in the consultation. I have tried to raise one point. We
:13:47. > :13:51.will look at them and see what everybody is saying on the
:13:51. > :13:58.consultation side of things. Thank you both very much indeed for your
:13:58. > :14:05.time this evening. What was behind the decision to close RAF Leuchars
:14:05. > :14:10.while keeping RAF Lossiemouth open. The local MP for Leuchars, Sir
:14:11. > :14:16.Alastair Campbell, suggested it had more to do with the -- Sir mensy
:14:16. > :14:20.Campbell said it had more to do with the strategy. The decision for
:14:20. > :14:27.the RAF to leave Leuchars and end 70 years of flying from the base
:14:27. > :14:33.came as a shock to the local community. Sir mingkam bell has
:14:33. > :14:41.made no se -- Ming Campbell has made no secret. He accused Danny
:14:41. > :14:47.Alexander of using his position in the Treasury to lob bion behalf of
:14:47. > :14:57.RAF losssy -- lobby on behalf of RAF Lossiemouth. He told the Times
:14:57. > :15:08.
:15:08. > :15:13.The Treasury responded, emphasising it was the Minnesota which took the
:15:13. > :15:23.final decision. -- the Ministry of Defence which
:15:23. > :15:33.
:15:33. > :15:38.It's that argument about economic impact which is the bone of
:15:38. > :15:43.contention. Campaign groups argued if RAF Lossiemouth closed so soon,
:15:43. > :15:46.the impact on the local community would have been devastating. There
:15:46. > :15:52.are concerns that Leuchars could lie empty for up to two years
:15:52. > :15:55.before it is turned into an army base. What impact will that have on
:15:55. > :16:03.their community? The Labour MP Thomas Docherty has writ on the the
:16:03. > :16:08.permanent secretary, asking her to investigate Sir ming's claims. The
:16:08. > :16:11.MP Mr Docherty joins us now. Why do you want an investigation? These
:16:11. > :16:15.are incredibly serious accusations made by one of the most senior
:16:15. > :16:19.members of the House of Commons, a figure respected on all sides for
:16:19. > :16:22.his knowledge of the defence and foreign affairs field. It is right
:16:22. > :16:27.than rather than have them hanging up in the air over the Government's
:16:27. > :16:31.decision, that we have a thorough investigation into these very
:16:31. > :16:38.serious accusations. If what you are suggesting actually happened
:16:38. > :16:45.and Danny Alexander, as a Highland MP, was advocating for a base in
:16:45. > :16:49.the north of Scotland thark would be a natural thing to do, wouldn't
:16:49. > :16:57.it? It would be for any who has an interest to champion their cause.
:16:57. > :16:59.My understanding of what Ming has suggested, has alleged, is that the
:16:59. > :17:04.Chief Secretary to the Treasury used the fact that he has the purse
:17:04. > :17:07.strings for the Ministry of Defence to force the MoD to make a decision,
:17:07. > :17:12.that perhaps was not correct. I think what we are seeing as well is,
:17:12. > :17:16.and this is a Defence Review, we didn't begin with much credibility,
:17:16. > :17:21.it is running out of credibility with every passing day. That is why
:17:21. > :17:26.we need this independent investigation. As your call for an
:17:26. > :17:30.investigation based on the reported comments of Sir Menzies Campbell,
:17:30. > :17:34.but you have no evidence yourself? There are concerns that we on the
:17:34. > :17:38.defence committee have about the way the process has been done. Ming
:17:38. > :17:43.has made a specific allegation that the Treasury intervened on the
:17:43. > :17:47.Ministry of Defence to change the decision. That's what we're asking
:17:47. > :17:51.for, asking the permanent secretary to investigate. The defence
:17:51. > :17:57.committee will in the autumn and winter study the review as a
:17:57. > :18:00.process. Ming has made a serious accusation. One that if it stands
:18:00. > :18:06.up will probably see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury leave his
:18:06. > :18:11.job. Isn't there though a perfectly long-standing tradition of senior
:18:11. > :18:19.members of Government advocating quite forcefully for their local
:18:19. > :18:24.communities? After all Rosyth is in Fife? Gordon Brown was credited for
:18:24. > :18:31.getting jobs to that particular base. Didn't this go on with all
:18:31. > :18:36.Governments? Address you say Gordon Brown has been a fantastic champion
:18:36. > :18:41.for the dockyard and Scottish workforce. As Chancellor didn't he
:18:41. > :18:45.hold the purse strings about where aircraft would be built and
:18:45. > :18:49.manufactured? Nobody has accused Gordon or any member of the
:18:49. > :18:57.previous Government of taking work away from one constituency and
:18:57. > :19:01.moving it to another for selfish or political reasons. It's absolutely
:19:01. > :19:05.right that Gordon championed the Scottish industries, but not at the
:19:05. > :19:09.expense of others in the United States. All decisions are made at
:19:09. > :19:13.the expense of another community - if they are not built in one area,
:19:13. > :19:16.they will be built in another area. Isn't Danny Alexander just doing
:19:16. > :19:24.what most Government ministers would do? Well, obviously given the
:19:24. > :19:28.limits of time here I will not start on my usual arguments about
:19:28. > :19:33.the very poor Defence Review we have. Fundamentally, the defence of
:19:33. > :19:36.the realm must come first. Ming is saying he believes that has been
:19:37. > :19:40.compromised and done at the behest of the Chief Secretary to the
:19:40. > :19:45.Treasury. It is right that any member of the Cabinet makes private
:19:45. > :19:48.reputations as a constituency member. What Ming is alleging his
:19:48. > :19:53.colleague did is threaten the Ministry of Defence using his purse
:19:53. > :19:59.strings. OK, thank you very much indeed for your time. Let's look
:19:59. > :20:04.now at tomorrow's newspaper now at tomorrow's newspaper
:20:04. > :20:10.headlines. We begin with the Times. The news agenda has been dominated
:20:10. > :20:14.by the riots in London. On to the Daily Telegraph "rule of the mob."
:20:14. > :20:19.The picture of a burning vehicle and a young man walking across the
:20:19. > :20:27.centre of that shot. The guardian has "the battle for London." Again
:20:27. > :20:35.more shots of the trouble in the capital city. The Independent, "Mob